Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. The idea that Questioner is putting forward is one which requires stay in intellectually infancy for life, and encouraging others to do the same, never transcending one's emotional reaction to the world around them. It is the stuff of nightmares.

I think here you've moved from the concept of 'truth' to 'norms'. They are not the same, and even if you think they are, we are not discussing this topic in that light. So the above is both slightly disingenuous (as in does not accurate represent what's been said, not suggesting it contradicts what is "true"), and probably so easily answerable its hard to grasp the point of asking, other than to rationalize behaving that way. I really enjoy how most of your replies to anything are open-ended and don't quite land on claims as such. It's cool. But in this case, it comes across as prevarication.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person.

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

This doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. So be it. That is exactly what we're discussing, and you've given ample example of exactly why the concept of "my truth" is incoherent, unhelpful and causes people to be worse interlocutors.

it has caused you to be unable to stay on a topic, answer a question directly or do much but post other people's ambiguous, and usually unrelated thoughts in service of belittling those who disagree with you. Its childish, anti-intellectual and likely a result of an emotional defiance to other people's views. Ironic.

Wittgenstein’s — Richard B

I suggest this is probably a sure sign you're in the wrong lane. But that is literally an opinion, I'm not making an argument of any kind - just noting why this wouldn't move someone in my position.

Not adding anything to this debate, think of it as more of a reaction to the debate as it unfolds.

I’ve not seen any effective rebuttal against the points I’ve raised. What I have seen are personal attacks on me, an intellectually dishonest position. Amounts to little more than trolling.

The concept of “my truth” has an ontological basis. “My truth” – as manifested in the concept of shradda, - refers to the “substance” of a person – is comprised of all that defines their world – and is an inherent part of their nature. It transcends the idea that truth is merely a property of language or knowledge. It is in fact an internalization of one’s reality.

To reject another’s concept of “my truth” based solely on a disagreement with whatever the other’s truth might be, is also intellectually dishonest. That position understands only at the level of language and knowledge, and does not address the concept.

A very common piece of advice to writers and poets is to, in their works, express their truth. The best poetry, the best writings, are those that creatively convey the artist’s truth.

As Rainer Rilke (Letter to a Young Poet) advised – “Go into yourself.”

And Emily Dickinson advised - “Tell all the truth but tell it slant —”

Walt Whitman collapses the distinction between poet and poem when in The Song of Myself, he writes -

“I celebrate myself, and sing myself.”

Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray) – makes a similar distinction - the artist is his art -

“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”

And James Joyce (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) spoke his truth when he wrote –

“To forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". — Philosophim

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective.

I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. — Philosophim

Manipulative: influencing or attempting to influence the behavior or emotions of others for one’s own purposes. — dictionary

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language".

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language (or at least an attempt at manipulative language -- I doubt your attempts actually manipulate anyone).

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language". — Ecurb

Wasn’t rhetoric considered one of the highest arts by the Greeks?

Could you explain what you were getting at? It's pretty obscure, and in Law "might" is not relevant. — AmadeusD

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything.

No, not "might makes right." Just the law. But as Gaius Petronius Arbiter said, "What power has law where only money rules?" — Ciceronianus

How long can one idealistically maintain a sharp distinction between what law, theoretically, ideally is or should be, and how it is actually practiced?

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”
― Jonathan Swift

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything. — baker

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

You've been given several direct challenges that you've failed to rise to. You're free to see that however you want to. But you are lying about what's occurred and are projecting hte fact that you resile into ad hominems every single time a robust rebuttal is given to you. You then post someone else's irrelevant ideas as if that's somehow going to support the situation.

Once again, when all are giving you the same feedback, it's time to drop the ego and have a think.

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective. — Ecurb

Incorrect. A fact is something tested and understood within a language. "Pluto is a planet." Years later..."Pluto is no longer a planet". Both are facts.

Truth is "What is". Whether we classify Pluto as a rock, a planet, or dust ball, 'it' is still exists.

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". — Ecurb

Give an example please so I know what you mean by 'manipulative'. I've given a clear example of manipulative language. How exactly is the teacher using manipulative language? Same with your other examples. They're so general nothing specific can be gleaned without further details from you.

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language — Ecurb

Instead of asking me, demonstrate you understood what I meant in my example of manipulative language. Then if you think what I've stated by 'clear evil' is manipulative, demonstrate why.

The concept of “my truth” has an ontological basis. “My truth” – as manifested in the concept of shradda, - refers to the “substance” of a person – is comprised of all that defines their world – and is an inherent part of their nature. It transcends the idea that truth is merely a property of language or knowledge. It is in fact an internalization of one’s reality — Questioner

What do you think of the idea that truth evolves via transitions in cultural norms and knowledge. For instance, Hegel argues that truth develops through dialectical becoming. The art, music, science and philosophy of the classical period makes way for the renaissance, and from there to the Enlightenment, the Romantic and modern eras. My truth as an artist can then be understood as my truth as it expresses my participation within a given period of cultural becoming.

Something along Moore's paradox would be more troubling, like "My truth is that it is raining, but it is not" (or "I believe it is raining, but it is not"). — Hanover

A Christian "friend" (who believed that vegetarianism was wrong or inferior) once told me that I was allowed to be a vegetarian, on the condition that I believe it is wrong or inferior to be vegetarian.
Seriously. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. But it wasn't the only instance of such reasoning on his part; after that I began to notice it in in some other people as well. A more common example is the way some religious people expect homosexual people to believe homosexuality is wrong.
There are people who do expect us to believe contradictions. This has to count for something.

Exactly this. Its a person using language to manipulate an outcome that they personally want vs using language to clearly communicate accuracy and clarity. The only way to defeat accuracy and clarity, is to attack the words themselves and diminish anyone who would dare use them in that way. Hate, unwarranted moral justification, and self-righteousness of cause are all tools to attack the one who wishes to be clear, rational, and assess the claim honestly. — Philosophim

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. "Truth" to be a similar type of word: sometimes just a filler word; other times, an invocation of an offense and hostility.

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. — AmadeusD

Again, my experience has been that this is not the case. Say that something is your opinion or your feeling or your experience, and sure enough others will shoot you down. Even when you are in fact talking about your opinions, feelings, and experiences. I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment.

Which also explains why they are so eager to rebut them, and why "my truth" can emerge as a defense against that rebuttal.

I think it's related to the rise of "I feel like ..." as an alternative to "I think ..." or even "I believe ..." In 21st America, your feelings are not open to critique. They just are what they are. Your opinions, your thoughts, your beliefs (but not your faith)—these are all open to critique and by saying "I think we should do this," you're practically inviting others to give their opinions or to critique yours. Not the case when you're expressing your feelings. — Srap Tasmaner

Interestingly, where I come from, feelings would be among the first to be attacked, especially in religious/spiritual circles.

"I don't feel the presence of the Holy Spirit."
"Then you're wrong. Just because you don't feel it doesn't mean it's not there."

What do you think of the idea that truth evolves via transitions in cultural norms and knowledge. — Joshs

Excellent question. I do admit that I have been coming from the viewpoint of personal truth, but cultural truths are worth consideration. I'm just not so sure they are universally accepted, if they conflict with personal truths. I would say that what is foremost in any one human heart is their personal truth.

My truth as an artist can then be understood as my truth as it expresses my participation within a given period of cultural becoming. — Joshs

But at the same time, we have individuals writing within the same cultural context coming from entirely different angles, or positions. Charles Dickens and Emily Bronte were both writing in Victorian England. Active were William Gladstone and William Wilberforce, who held diametrically opposed views about slavery. So, personal truth trumps cultural truth.

At least for the courageous among us. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by "idealistically" here, but as long as I've been a lawyer I've always thought the law and morality are different things, and shouldn't be equated. The law may be good or bad, but is always the law. The practice of law consists of the application of the law and its interpretation in the best interests of the client. But one may choose one's client.

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? — AmadeusD

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to how the practice of the law is in the service of power.

For example, how the traffic police doesn't hunt down and fine people in fancy cars, even when it's clear they've broken the law, but they hunt down people in middle-class cars and poor-people cars for minor transgressions.
Or how a high politician who was sentenced to a prison sentence can walk out of a prison -- physically wallk out of the building -- and no guard stops him. And this is in a first-world country.

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law. (Real example.)

Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

Hm. For example: I live in a jurisdiction where, after a routine traffic stop by the traffic police, the driver is offered to sign a document stating that the police officers have acted professionally and in accordance with the law. If you sign it, you can go. If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.) We could discuss whether this is a use or an abuse of power. Case in point: The traffic police likes to wait for people on an overpass, with very poor visibility and little room. So after they're done with you and they let you go, you have to drive backwards onto the main road, on an overpass with poor visibility. As far as traffic laws go, this is illegal and punishable, yet the police are forcing you to break the law.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms?
— Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. — AmadeusD

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread.

But at the same time, we have individuals writing within the same cultural context coming from entirely different angles, or positions. Charles Dickens and Emily Bronte were both writing in Victorian England. Active were William Gladstone and William Wilberforce, who held diametrically opposed views about slavery. So, personal truth trumps cultural — Questioner

Both Dickens and Brontë are considered Romantic writers. This is not just because they happened to be working in the same time period, but because their work shows the influences of the larger artistic and cultural trends that fall within the umbrella of Romanticism. Two Romantic artists can have diametrically opposing views on a given subject while both approach that subject in a way that is recognizably ‘Romantic’. Viewpoints can be variations on shared thematics.

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. — baker

Its hard to judge what is deliberately offensive. Regardless, offensive or not, if someone is being honest they are not using manipulative language. A person who was not being honest, but twisting the word 'honest' to imply they were, would be using manipulative language.

both approach that subject in a way that is recognizably ‘Romantic’. — Joshs

You'd also have to consider the themes of their work, though